CHICAGO, IL (ANS) -- A father from the Midwest who knew he could be accused of defying a court order barring him from taking his daughter to church took her anyway -- and now he is facing contempt of court charges and jail.

Thirty-five-year-old Joseph Reyes, holding his 3-year-old in his arms, walked into Holy Name Cathedral on January 17. A news crew videotaped the act of defiance.

"I have been ordered by a judge not to expose my daughter to anything non-Judaism," Reyes told a news reporter. "But I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish Rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours. I can't think of anything more Jewish than that."

The prominent Jewish Rabbi that Reyes referenced was Jesus Christ.

Just before Christmas, a judge issued a temporary restraining order specifically barring Reyes from exposing his daughter to any religion other than Judaism after Reyes had his daughter Baptized without the knowledge of his estranged Jewish wife.

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...this case isn't going anywhere. Regardless of the outcome of any hearing or trial, the case will immediately move into the federal courts and any decision will be overturned on first amendment grounds. It's somewhat shocking that this judge even issued the order considering SCOTUS precedent.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...this case isn't going anywhere. Regardless of the outcome of any hearing or trial, the case will immediately move into the federal courts and any decision will be overturned on first amendment grounds. It's somewhat shocking that this judge even issued the order considering SCOTUS precedent.

You forget: this is Chicago.

A friend of mine this week was given less than 12 hours to be informed that he was being hauled before the divorce judge. Mom was alleging that he was beating the children to make them kiss the icons, and that their "therapsit" (unknown to my friend) was having DCFS investigate. Dad isn't abusive, but mom is. Typical. For some unknown reason, mom volunteered in court that DCFS had informed her that spankng wasn't against the law. She and her three lawyers filed anyway.

The judge, it was obvious, wanted to suspend visitation. I gave him a handful of cases which frustrated the judge. He's already in the appellate court, so it is going to be interesting what they do with this latest outburst of mom's. Maybe they can consolidate with the cause of the OP.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

besides the craven desire to force his indoctrination on the children of others, Greeky is otherwise right. Custody agreements on issues of religion have been voided over and over.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...this case isn't going anywhere. Regardless of the outcome of any hearing or trial, the case will immediately move into the federal courts and any decision will be overturned on first amendment grounds. It's somewhat shocking that this judge even issued the order considering SCOTUS precedent.

You forget: this is Chicago.

A friend of mine this week was given less than 12 hours to be informed that he was being hauled before the divorce judge. Mom was alleging that he was beating the children to make them kiss the icons, and that their "therapsit" (unknown to my friend) was having DCFS investigate. Dad isn't abusive, but mom is. Typical. For some unknown reason, mom volunteered in court that DCFS had informed her that spankng wasn't against the law. She and her three lawyers filed anyway.

The judge, it was obvious, wanted to suspend visitation. I gave him a handful of cases which frustrated the judge. He's already in the appellate court, so it is going to be interesting what they do with this latest outburst of mom's. Maybe they can consolidate with the cause of the OP.

LOL...you won't get any argument from me about the problems with family court; there's no reason for it to even exist, everything could be taken care of in a civil jury trial. But the case in the OP is a little different, it doesn't involve accusations of physical abuse (even if unfounded, which I am inclined to believe is the case in the case you mentioned), it involves a pretty clear-cut constitutional issue. If this hearing actually goes anywhere, he won't even have to deal with the Illinois court system, a habeas corpus petition to the federal district court could take care of it. The mother and the judge are getting in way over their heads with this one.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...this case isn't going anywhere. Regardless of the outcome of any hearing or trial, the case will immediately move into the federal courts and any decision will be overturned on first amendment grounds. It's somewhat shocking that this judge even issued the order considering SCOTUS precedent.

You forget: this is Chicago.

A friend of mine this week was given less than 12 hours to be informed that he was being hauled before the divorce judge. Mom was alleging that he was beating the children to make them kiss the icons, and that their "therapsit" (unknown to my friend) was having DCFS investigate. Dad isn't abusive, but mom is. Typical. For some unknown reason, mom volunteered in court that DCFS had informed her that spankng wasn't against the law. She and her three lawyers filed anyway.

The judge, it was obvious, wanted to suspend visitation. I gave him a handful of cases which frustrated the judge. He's already in the appellate court, so it is going to be interesting what they do with this latest outburst of mom's. Maybe they can consolidate with the cause of the OP.

LOL...you won't get any argument from me about the problems with family court; there's no reason for it to even exist, everything could be taken care of in a civil jury trial. But the case in the OP is a little different, it doesn't involve accusations of physical abuse (even if unfounded, which I am inclined to believe is the case in the case you mentioned), it involves a pretty clear-cut constitutional issue. If this hearing actually goes anywhere, he won't even have to deal with the Illinois court system, a habeas corpus petition to the federal district court could take care of it. The mother and the judge are getting in way over their heads with this one.

Yes, the "family court" in particular and the courts in general here are full of John Marshalls. Just ask them. This past year there was the scandal (yeah, in IL of all places) where the dean of the law school at the state university was making deals with the pols to get their kids in and on scholarships. The aim, I think is found in the article of the IL constitution which restricts judgeships to lawyers. In the middle ages, the eldest son inherited the title and the younger sons were given the miter (the daughters, of course, married off in deals). Now the pols given the lesser profile sons a bench.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

besides the craven desire to force his indoctrination on the children of others, Greeky is otherwise right. Custody agreements on issues of religion have been voided over and over.

Each state's family court is free to handle how the parties raise children - thanks to 10th Amendment.

IL happens to choose one way. MD chooses another way. What the OP described (at least to the extent that the media has been involved) has never happened in MD which was founded on the principle of religious toleration from the start.

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

besides the craven desire to force his indoctrination on the children of others, Greeky is otherwise right. Custody agreements on issues of religion have been voided over and over.

Each state's family court is free to handle how the parties raise children - thanks to 10th Amendment.

IL happens to choose one way. MD chooses another way. What the OP described (at least to the extent that the media has been involved) has never happened in MD which was founded on the principle of religious toleration from the start.

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

besides the craven desire to force his indoctrination on the children of others, Greeky is otherwise right. Custody agreements on issues of religion have been voided over and over.

Each state's family court is free to handle how the parties raise children - thanks to 10th Amendment.

IL happens to choose one way. MD chooses another way. What the OP described (at least to the extent that the media has been involved) has never happened in MD which was founded on the principle of religious toleration from the start.

But, in this case, I think the proper ruling from precedent would be that the 14th Amendment overrides 10th Amendment Arguments.

The 14th Amendment makes no reference to religion; hence, you made a good point. The family law judge has to determine whether to deprive a child of Catholicism or Judaism and hold a parent in contempt for enforcing Catholicism against the mother's wishes. Sounds to me like in IL they can do whatever they want.

If he had a Catholic wedding, the couple would already be aware that the Catholic spouse would presumably live according to the laws of the church, and that any prospective children of the union would be raised Catholic. This issue of the religion of the children being raised Jewish or Catholic theoretically would already have been settled at the time of the Catholic marriage.

Catoloic marriage or no, they should have had these questions settled long before they were estranged. I wonder what was the legal basis of the injunction.

Parenting plans can negotiate the religion that the children can be exposed to. In Judaism, faith is transmitted through the mother; hence, the child, according to Talmudic Law, is de facto Jewish. The judge can't interfere in religion; however, he can enforce judgments and settlements negotiated by the parties and if part of the settlement includes the child being raised Jewish, then the father is in contempt of court for violating a negotiated agreement.

But it's established in our law that there are certain rights you can't be compelled to wave. A contract or negotiation that waves the right to political speech, or to religion, or to vote, or to due process, etc. is inherently invalid, you can't hold someone to such an agreement and a unilateral withdrawal from such an agreement can't be regarded as a breach of contract and most certainly can't be regarded as a criminal act. Constitutional rights are regarded as more fundamental than contract law (this is, perhaps, one of the most fundamental differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism, the significance of contract law relative to fundamental liberties...but that's an issue for another thread). The case will be thrown out, if not by this court, by the federal district court...the child will be raised christian by the father and jewish by the mother and, with any luck, will turn away from both when older.

besides the craven desire to force his indoctrination on the children of others, Greeky is otherwise right. Custody agreements on issues of religion have been voided over and over.

Each state's family court is free to handle how the parties raise children - thanks to 10th Amendment.

IL happens to choose one way. MD chooses another way. What the OP described (at least to the extent that the media has been involved) has never happened in MD which was founded on the principle of religious toleration from the start.

But, in this case, I think the proper ruling from precedent would be that the 14th Amendment overrides 10th Amendment Arguments.

The 14th Amendment makes no reference to religion; hence, you made a good point. The family law judge has to determine whether to deprive a child of Catholicism or Judaism and hold a parent in contempt for enforcing Catholicism against the mother's wishes. Sounds to me like in IL they can do whatever they want.

Ummm...have you read any of the case law relating to the application of the first amendment to the states by the fourteenth?

In Everson v. Board of Education Justice Black writing for the Court said:

Quote

The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom.

He then went on to say:

Quote

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

A judge does not get to decide matters of religion, not even a judge from Illinois. It's obvious that he overstepped his authority when he began micromanaging people's religious lives and there's a century of SCOTUS case law to back up that assertion.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Ummm...have you read any of the case law relating to the application of the first amendment to the states by the fourteenth?

In Everson v. Board of Education Justice Black writing for the Court said:

Quote

The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom.

He then went on to say:

Quote

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

A judge does not get to decide matters of religion, not even a judge from Illinois. It's obvious that he overstepped his authority when he began micromanaging people's religious lives and there's a century of SCOTUS case law to back up that assertion.

Meanwhile, if you sat as judge and enforce IL Law in the matter raised by the OP, would you place the father in jail for contempt or would you direct the parties to settle the matter between themselves, like they should have before getting married or something else?

I would order the parties and their attorneys to settle the matter between themselves.

While there is no question that the judge overstepped his bounds, wouldn't the father have been better off fighting things through his attorney and the courts rather than violating the restraining order?

My concern is that he may have hurt his case more than helped it by violating the restraining order.

I feel bad for the child in all this. It's a shame when the parents act more like children than the children do. The parents should have figured out what religion the child was going to be raised in before the child was born. Now they're just using the religion card as a method to hurt one another. It's sad.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

Ummm...have you read any of the case law relating to the application of the first amendment to the states by the fourteenth?

In Everson v. Board of Education Justice Black writing for the Court said:

Quote

The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom.

He then went on to say:

Quote

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

A judge does not get to decide matters of religion, not even a judge from Illinois. It's obvious that he overstepped his authority when he began micromanaging people's religious lives and there's a century of SCOTUS case law to back up that assertion.

Meanwhile, if you sat as judge and enforce IL Law in the matter raised by the OP, would you place the father in jail for contempt or would you direct the parties to settle the matter between themselves, like they should have before getting married or something else?

I would order the parties and their attorneys to settle the matter between themselves.

Were I the judge I would have never had issued such an order, I would have said that matters of religion are beyond the competency of the court and that each parent has the right to practice their religion as they see fit and that neither the courts nor the other parent has any right to determine or influence the the practices of the other. The kid can practice the jewish faith when with the mother and the christian faith when with the father. Regardless of what you think is best for the kid or whatever, there are more fundamental issues of constitutional law at play and that make such concerns moot.

Frankly, I don't think the judge even has the right to order the parties to settle the matter, religion is a purely private matter that has no place in any courtroom...the judge even acting as a completely impartial observer ordering the matter to be settled privately would be inappropriate and unconstitutional.

I'd tell them that they can discuss this issue amongst themselves or not, but that I don't want it brought up again in the courtroom.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

While there is no question that the judge overstepped his bounds, wouldn't the father have been better off fighting things through his attorney and the courts rather than violating the restraining order?

My concern is that he may have hurt his case more than helped it by violating the restraining order.

Actually, I think his case would be much stronger if he actually were arrested. He'd then have access to relief by writ of habeas corpus, which he wouldn't have otherwise, making the case much more difficult, or at the very least, much slower to progress. I think this was a tactical legal decision, but also one that was within his rights. The judge's order was clearly a violation of the establishment clause.

Quote

I feel bad for the child in all this. It's a shame when the parents act more like children than the children do. The parents should have figured out what religion the child was going to be raised in before the child was born. Now they're just using the religion card as a method to hurt one another. It's sad.

For all I know, they did decide before the child was born, but as I explained in a previous approach, any such agreement would have no legal force, even an agreement before the court would have no legal force, you simply aren't allowed to surrender your first amendment rights. And it's very likely this whole ordeal is out of spite, but that's not really relevant to the case, it's a simple constitutional question.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Actually, I think his case would be much stronger if he actually were arrested. He'd then have access to relief by writ of habeas corpus, which he wouldn't have otherwise, making the case much more difficult, or at the very least, much slower to progress. I think this was a tactical legal decision, but also one that was within his rights. The judge's order was clearly a violation of the establishment clause.

Interesting to know.

Quote

I feel bad for the child in all this. It's a shame when the parents act more like children than the children do. The parents should have figured out what religion the child was going to be raised in before the child was born. Now they're just using the religion card as a method to hurt one another. It's sad.

For all I know, they did decide before the child was born, but as I explained in a previous approach, any such agreement would have no legal force, even an agreement before the court would have no legal force, you simply aren't allowed to surrender your first amendment rights. And it's very likely this whole ordeal is out of spite, but that's not really relevant to the case, it's a simple constitutional question.

Oh I know you don't know the particulars of what the parents arranged. I was just commenting on the parents immaturity in the whole ordeal. It's amazing what "adults" will put their children through just to hurt one another, when really, all they hurt is the children.

It's just stupid.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 12:31:01 AM by HandmaidenofGod »

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

Actually, I think his case would be much stronger if he actually were arrested. He'd then have access to relief by writ of habeas corpus, which he wouldn't have otherwise, making the case much more difficult, or at the very least, much slower to progress. I think this was a tactical legal decision, but also one that was within his rights. The judge's order was clearly a violation of the establishment clause.

Interesting to know.

Quote

I feel bad for the child in all this. It's a shame when the parents act more like children than the children do. The parents should have figured out what religion the child was going to be raised in before the child was born. Now they're just using the religion card as a method to hurt one another. It's sad.

For all I know, they did decide before the child was born, but as I explained in a previous approach, any such agreement would have no legal force, even an agreement before the court would have no legal force, you simply aren't allowed to surrender your first amendment rights. And it's very likely this whole ordeal is out of spite, but that's not really relevant to the case, it's a simple constitutional question.

Oh I know you don't know the particulars of what the parents arranged. I was just commenting on the parents immaturity in the whole ordeal. It's amazing what "adults" will put their children through just to hurt one another, when really, all they hurt is the children.

As suspected it is a childish and vindictive move on the part of the father, neither parent is particularly religious and it was agreed that the child was raised Jewish. I agree that this whole thing is stupid and childish. But I also think that the constitutional issues here are more significant than the case background. The judge essentially used the force of law to favour one religion over another, that is the legal definition of the establishment of a religion. The case is certainly unfortunate and bad for the society, but the precedent the judge is trying to set is extremely damaging to our constitutional rights and to society as a whole.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Meanwhile, leaders of Jewish organizations are beginning to weigh in on the possible implications of the case. Emily Soloff, national associate director for interreligious and intergroup relations of the American Jewish Committee, said, "In reading the story, listening to the father, it's tragic. The tragedy is the child has become a football between two adults who should have been counseled better and should be more honest now in terms of their responses. They should not use their religions and their child to bludgeon the other parent."

The final sentence concurs with my initial thoughts - both parents are high conflict personalities. One parent is a law student and war veteran. The other parent is exploiting how Judaism is transferred through the mother. 90% of all Jewish weddings are interfaith and a handful of cases receive this kind of media scrutiny. Very sad for all parties involved.

I would order the parties and their attorneys to settle the matter between themselves.

Well we all know THAT's not going to happen. If the parents had the maturity to do that, they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

including I suspect the divorce. Make no mistake: divorce court is a business, and it depends on no fault to depend on petty squabbles to generate divorces and lucrative cases.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

While there is no question that the judge overstepped his bounds, wouldn't the father have been better off fighting things through his attorney and the courts rather than violating the restraining order?

No. Attorneys usually don't want to upset judges because they earn their bread from his cess pool.

Quote

My concern is that he may have hurt his case more than helped it by violating the restraining order.

No, if he has a case, he has lucked out in that the spotlight is on it. Like cockroaches, such judges don't like light, the great disinfectant.

Quote

I feel bad for the child in all this. It's a shame when the parents act more like children than the children do. The parents should have figured out what religion the child was going to be raised in before the child was born. Now they're just using the religion card as a method to hurt one another. It's sad. :-

From what I gather, the parents should have gotten their own religious house in order before they married.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I would order the parties and their attorneys to settle the matter between themselves.

Well we all know THAT's not going to happen. If the parents had the maturity to do that, they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

including I suspect the divorce. Make no mistake: divorce court is a business, and it depends on no fault to depend on petty squabbles to generate divorces and lucrative cases.

While Divorce Court is a business designed to blow petty squabbles out of proportion, there are techniques Courts can use to mitigate / minimize these petty squabbles since not every party can afford a $10,000 retainer (typical for contested case divorce in MD or $50,000 in IL including a new leased Mercedes every 2 years for the judge, lol).

Unfortunately, in IL as you have described, judicial enlightenment has yet to meet the squeaky wheel.

A Chicago man who defied a court order and took his toddler to a Catholic Church service was arraigned today on a charge of indirect criminal contempt in a custody battle that is threatening to put him in jail and draw new boundaries in divorce cases.

Joseph Reyes pleaded not guilty for allegedly violating a court order issued by Chicago family law Judge Edward R. Jordan who had barred Reyes from taking his 3-year-old daughter to church following a dispute over religion with his estranged wife. Reyes' wife, Rebecca Reyes, is Jewish.

Reyes, a veteran of the Afghan war, made a motion to have his contempt charges heard by a different judge, a motion that was granted. He was arraigned before Judge Elizabeth Loredo-Rivera.

If found guilty of indirect criminal contempt, Reyes could be sentenced to up to six months in jail.

The next court date is on March 3, when Reyes is expected to file a motion to dismiss all charges against him.

In a statement issued after the hearing, Reyes said, "There's a strong possibility I could end up in jail. It's really sad it's come to this."

Reyes and his wife are in abitter divorce battle, and the question of what faith their child should be raised in is pushing the boundaries of child custody arrangements.

Reyes' decision to baptize his daughter without his wife's permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion."

The couple married in 2004. Joseph Reyes was Catholic, but he converted to Judaism to please his in-laws. He has said the decision wasn't "voluntary."

Despite his conversion, Reyes, 35, said he never stopped practicing Catholicism.

Man Baptized Daughter Without Informing Estranged Wife

When the marriage fell apart, Rebecca Reyes, 34, got custody of their daughter. The girl, now 3, has been raised Jewish and attended a Jewish preschool.

Her father decided to baptize his daughter without consulting his wife.

Joseph Reyes sent his wife pictures and an e-mail documenting the occasion. Rebecca Reyes responded by filing for the temporary restraining order, which the judge granted.

Stephen Lake, Rebecca Reyes' attorney, said his client was shocked at her estranged husband's actions.

"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."

Furthermore, Joseph Reyes had never been a particularly devout Christian, Lake added.

When the girl's father took her to church again in violation of the order, he called the media to witness the event.

A court could rule today on whether Reyes should be jailed for criminal contempt, but he contends he did nothing wrong.

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

He did his homework, that is a VERY strong legal argument...even if it falls short theologically. The court has time and time again ruled that it has no right to rule on theological matters, it has no right to determine what is a 'true' expression of a religion compared to an 'incorrect' one. If he says his understanding of Judaism includes Catholicism, the court has no right to rule that he violated the restraining order...which was constitutional dubious in the first place.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Before we totally bash the courts, we don't know all of the facts of this case. (Having worked in Family Court and for Children's Services for far too many years, I can give you many examples of judicial, parental and governmental agency intemperance and excess to fill a bookshelf. From what has been posted thus far, I don't know is this is such a case.) If this couple had, for example, a valid prenuptual agreement regarding the rearing and religion of children or a validly entered into separation agreement following the break up that covered the subject of religion, then a state court could interpret such an agreement under contract law and not run afoul of any federal or state constitutional issues. In the absence of such an agreement, or in spite of it as the case may be, the overly vague "best interests of the child" clause may be invoked by a Judge if, for example the child(ren) were raised in an intact household in one faith and, after separation, the non-custodial parent took it upon him or herself, to unilaterally change the child(rens') faith. More than likely, given the reported fact that the father had 'converted' to Judaism pre-marriage, the judge probably issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo ante in order to sort things out and, after another court appearance, set the case for a conference and, perhaps. a trial where the father's claim that his 'conversion' was involuntary could be a pivotal issue. The goal of a pre-trial conference ideally should be to convince the parents to work out a settlement they both can live with, rather than trust the judicial system. Violating a temporary order in such a high profile fashion will do the father no good in the long run in his efforts to win a say in the religious upbringing of his child. Angering your judge is rarely a sound legal strategy, except in the most egregious of situations. I wonder if we would be so indignant and be be so instinctively sympathethic to the father if he had left an Orthodox Christian household and taken the child to an Imam in such a defiant manner. I suspect not.

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

He did his homework, that is a VERY strong legal argument...even if it falls short theologically. The court has time and time again ruled that it has no right to rule on theological matters, it has no right to determine what is a 'true' expression of a religion compared to an 'incorrect' one. If he says his understanding of Judaism includes Catholicism, the court has no right to rule that he violated the restraining order...which was constitutional dubious in the first place.

This is spooky: I totally agree with your assessment.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Before we totally bash the courts, we don't know all of the facts of this case. (Having worked in Family Court and for Children's Services for far too many years, I can give you many examples of judicial, parental and governmental agency intemperance and excess to fill a bookshelf. From what has been posted thus far, I don't know is this is such a case.) If this couple had, for example, a valid prenuptual agreement regarding the rearing and religion of children or a validly entered into separation agreement following the break up that covered the subject of religion, then a state court could interpret such an agreement under contract law and not run afoul of any federal or state constitutional issues. In the absence of such an agreement, or in spite of it as the case may be, the overly vague "best interests of the child" clause may be invoked by a Judge if, for example the child(ren) were raised in an intact household in one faith and, after separation, the non-custodial parent took it upon him or herself, to unilaterally change the child(rens') faith.

Contract law is subject to constitutional law, a contract that addresses religious issues is invalid, ipso facto; there simply can be no legally binding religious agreement made within the boundaries of the United States or her territories under the first and fourteenth amendments. And the 'best interests of the child' is moot, because the court would have have to rule that a certain religion, even if under a very narrowly defined set of circumstances, is the "best interest of the child", which is inherently favouring one religion over another by the court, which the court cannot do. In the relatively recent case Friedlander v. Port Jewish Center a Federal District Court in New York threw out a legally binding contract about a rabbi's employment, essentially invalidating the contract before the law, because even though no religious reasons were citing in the unilateral early termination of Friedlander's contract by the Temple and the contract provided that 'the Rabbi shall have freedom of the pulpit' (main issue seemed to be that attendance was down and the Rabbi wasn't available enough for administrative issues) and could only be dismissed for 'for grossmisconduct or willful neglect of duty'. However, since any interpretation of 'gross misconduct' or 'willful neglect of duty' could possibly require it to rule on issues that may be tangentially related to religious matters, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case, appeal was denied by the Second Circuit Court and the SCOTUS.

Those who enter into a contract that even tangentially touches upon religious issues have no legal recourse. So whether or not there was such an agreement here is moot.

Quote

More than likely, given the reported fact that the father had 'converted' to Judaism pre-marriage, the judge probably issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo ante in order to sort things out and, after another court appearance, set the case for a conference and, perhaps. a trial where the father's claim that his 'conversion' was involuntary could be a pivotal issue. The goal of a pre-trial conference ideally should be to convince the parents to work out a settlement they both can live with, rather than trust the judicial system.

If they can agree on a solution, great...but it should be kept in mind that no agreement on this matter can be regarded as legally binding and one's adherence or failure to adhere to any such agreement cannot be a factor before any court of law. This is the whole point of the separation of church and state, this is the whole point of the first amendment.

Quote

Violating a temporary order in such a high profile fashion will do the father no good in the long run in his efforts to win a say in the religious upbringing of his child. Angering your judge is rarely a sound legal strategy, except in the most egregious of situations.

Like when a judge issues a restraining order that is nothing short of insane, considering the last century of SCOTUS precedent?

Quote

I wonder if we would be so indignant and be be so instinctively sympathethic to the father if he had left an Orthodox Christian household and taken the child to an Imam in such a defiant manner. I suspect not.

I'm not sympathetic to the father, I believe that ANY form of religious instruction or indoctrination of children is child abuse; but my personal opinions aren't really the issue, are they? The issue is one of the extent of judicial jurisdiction in light of the first and fourteenth amendments. Which I am certain is exactly how the Federal Courts will see the issue if it goes any further than this trial.

Really, what's the court going to do, tell this guy that theological understanding of Judaism as being compatible with Catholicism is wrong and send him to jail for it? Perhaps the court could go on to define what theology is Jewish and which theology is Christian? Maybe it can then issue restraining orders preventing Moslems from converting to other religions and persecute those who refuse to abide by them?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

The father was just on WLS. Mom is going to be on 20/20 tonight with her sobb story. Seems mom only got interested in the practice of Judaism when the divorce started and she noticed that all the judges on the case were Jewish.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...

*hiss*

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...

*hiss*

Booing a fellow who can't defend himself?

A boo and a hiss are very different.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

As much as I like the idea of courts being able to prevent parents from exposing their children to religion...

*hiss*

Booing a fellow who can't defend himself?

A boo and a hiss are very different.

But the fact that GiC is currently unable to defend himself is unchanged.

I don't know that a hiss is something that one needs to defend one's self from.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

He did his homework, that is a VERY strong legal argument...even if it falls short theologically. The court has time and time again ruled that it has no right to rule on theological matters, it has no right to determine what is a 'true' expression of a religion compared to an 'incorrect' one. If he says his understanding of Judaism includes Catholicism, the court has no right to rule that he violated the restraining order...which was constitutional dubious in the first place.

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

He did his homework, that is a VERY strong legal argument...even if it falls short theologically. The court has time and time again ruled that it has no right to rule on theological matters, it has no right to determine what is a 'true' expression of a religion compared to an 'incorrect' one. If he says his understanding of Judaism includes Catholicism, the court has no right to rule that he violated the restraining order...which was constitutional dubious in the first place.

GiC had a good explanation. I wonder howthis case turned out?

Quote

Judge: Dad can take daughter to Catholic churchApril 13, 2010 6:06 PM | 15 Comments | UPDATED STORY A Cook County judge has ruled that a father can take his 3-year-old daughter to Mass at a Roman Catholic church, even though her mother is raising her Jewish.

Judge Renee Goldfarb said Tuesday that Joseph Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses. This court also ordered that Joseph have visitation with [their daughter] every year on Christmas and Easter."

Likewise, the order stipulated that Rebecca Reyes always have their daughter on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover.

"I have to be very, very happy that I got additional time with my daughter and got to expose [her] to all of who I am," Joseph Reyes said.

Goldfarb declined to keep Reyes from taking his daughter to church as long as no evidence exists that it would harm the child. Though Rebecca Reyes testified that contrary religious teachings could confuse the pre-schooler, Goldfarb avoided doctrinal questions, saying it was not the court's place "to focus on or attempt to interpret or judge official religious doctrines."

"She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church, she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles," Goldfarb wrote. "This court found that testimony credible."

The ruling in the divorce proceeding between Joseph and Rebecca Reyes lifts restrictions placed on Joseph Reyes last year that barred him from exposing his daughter to any "non-Jewish" religious activity.

The injunction was imposed after Reyes sent photographs of his daughter's baptism to his estranged wife, who had not known about the baptism.

A judge will rule later this month whether Reyes should stand trial for contempt after allegedly defying the order and asking television news crews to film him in December taking his daughter to Mass at Holy Name Cathedral in downtown Chicago. Reyes, a student at John Marshall Law School, said he defied the order because it was unconstitutional.

"Joseph compared himself to Rosa Parks," Goldfarb said. "Joseph Reyes is no Rosa Parks."Joseph and Rebecca Reyes were married in October 2004, but they split four years later. Rebecca Reyes was granted sole custody of their daughter last year.

Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:

"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"Going to church, I don't think I violated the order," he told "Good Morning America." "In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

He did his homework, that is a VERY strong legal argument...even if it falls short theologically. The court has time and time again ruled that it has no right to rule on theological matters, it has no right to determine what is a 'true' expression of a religion compared to an 'incorrect' one. If he says his understanding of Judaism includes Catholicism, the court has no right to rule that he violated the restraining order...which was constitutional dubious in the first place.

GiC had a good explanation. I wonder howthis case turned out?

Quote

Judge: Dad can take daughter to Catholic churchApril 13, 2010 6:06 PM | 15 Comments | UPDATED STORY A Cook County judge has ruled that a father can take his 3-year-old daughter to Mass at a Roman Catholic church, even though her mother is raising her Jewish.

Judge Renee Goldfarb said Tuesday that Joseph Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses. This court also ordered that Joseph have visitation with [their daughter] every year on Christmas and Easter."

Likewise, the order stipulated that Rebecca Reyes always have their daughter on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover.

"I have to be very, very happy that I got additional time with my daughter and got to expose [her] to all of who I am," Joseph Reyes said.

Goldfarb declined to keep Reyes from taking his daughter to church as long as no evidence exists that it would harm the child. Though Rebecca Reyes testified that contrary religious teachings could confuse the pre-schooler, Goldfarb avoided doctrinal questions, saying it was not the court's place "to focus on or attempt to interpret or judge official religious doctrines."

"She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church, she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles," Goldfarb wrote. "This court found that testimony credible."

The ruling in the divorce proceeding between Joseph and Rebecca Reyes lifts restrictions placed on Joseph Reyes last year that barred him from exposing his daughter to any "non-Jewish" religious activity.

The injunction was imposed after Reyes sent photographs of his daughter's baptism to his estranged wife, who had not known about the baptism.

A judge will rule later this month whether Reyes should stand trial for contempt after allegedly defying the order and asking television news crews to film him in December taking his daughter to Mass at Holy Name Cathedral in downtown Chicago. Reyes, a student at John Marshall Law School, said he defied the order because it was unconstitutional.

"Joseph compared himself to Rosa Parks," Goldfarb said. "Joseph Reyes is no Rosa Parks."Joseph and Rebecca Reyes were married in October 2004, but they split four years later. Rebecca Reyes was granted sole custody of their daughter last year.

Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:

"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."

It was a pretty easy case, once it was clear the Judge's ruling would be subject to review by federal courts under a habeas corpus claim. Regardless of the Judge's personal opinion on the matter, her hands were tied.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I feel bad for the child. It seems that her exposure to faith and religion is as a weapon for battling one's own ends. The parents didn't seem to care too much for their respective faiths when they married--given that, from what I know, most Jews and traditional Christians are opposed to interfaith marriage.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.